[HN Gopher] Bubble barriers: a smart solution to plastic polluti...
___________________________________________________________________
Bubble barriers: a smart solution to plastic pollution in rivers
Author : dwenzek
Score : 260 points
Date : 2020-09-15 12:10 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thegreatbubblebarrier.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thegreatbubblebarrier.com)
| cocoapuffs7 wrote:
| If this is the main idea, move it further up on the page if it
| doesn't break your design goals. I skipped the initial text and
| went right to it.
|
| https://thegreatbubblebarrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03...
|
| Great idea. Has it been tested?
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| They claim they are working with Deltares which if you are not
| familiar is a reference research institute in the Netherlands
| for Waterway management.
|
| On top of the principle you linked I think an important feature
| of their concept is that the bubble barrier is diagonal to the
| waterway so that the debrie is accumulated and guided to a
| single collection point on the river bank.
| maaaaattttt wrote:
| There is a video [0] on the "more info" page [1] that presents
| one working implementation in Amsterdam (video is in Dutch but
| with good subtitles)
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_KwF-gf0S0
|
| [1] http://thegreatbubblebarrier.com/en/amsterdam-en/
| moooo99 wrote:
| I know that big chemical manufacturing facilities with waterway
| connections use a similar approach to keep chemicals from
| entering the waterway in case of an accident. So when it works
| for liquids, I'd assume it'd also work for solid objects such
| as plastic waste. However, I doubt this is something fishes
| would pass, I couldn't find anything about that that proves
| this claim.
| Aunche wrote:
| It's unfortunate that these "sexy" solutions get more attention
| than practical ones. Trash localized in a smaller body of water
| isn't much better than trash in the ocean, especially since a
| clogged up river will eventually start leaking trash. The most
| effective way to reduce ocean trash in the ocean is to build
| proper waste management infrastructure in developing countries.
| The only NGO I can find that does this is WasteAid.
|
| https://wasteaid.org
| Retric wrote:
| The bubbles are only part of the solution. You still need a
| fairly straightforward extraction method and a landfill or
| other long term disposal method. This might add up to ~5 dump
| trucks an hour worth of trash for extreme rivers, but that's
| not all that expensive.
| crazygringo wrote:
| This is fascinating and clever.
|
| But the cynic inside me fears it would never make a difference.
| First of all, one common statistic is that 90% of trash in the
| ocean that comes from people dumping it (in rivers) comes from
| just 10 rivers, all in China/Asia.
|
| And if they cared about the problem, they'd already be doing
| something about it. But it seems like they don't. Because the
| real solution there is the same as what is done in the first
| world -- to implement actual municipal trash pickup and urban
| trashcans etc. If they can't even do that, I have a hard time
| believing they'll bother with "bubble barriers".
|
| So this seems like something first-world countries would
| implement... but that's not where the problem is.
|
| But second, it's also common to hear that a large majority of
| _overall_ ocean plastic comes from discarded industrial fishing
| gear -- nets and the like. Which this obviously does nothing for.
|
| So while still very clever, I sadly don't think this could ever
| make a difference. We need to actually solve the much messier
| human problems of installing trash collection around the world
| and figuring out ways to monitor and punish fishers who discard
| their equipment.
| Softcadbury wrote:
| It comes mainly from Asia because developed countries send
| their trashes there (in big polluting ships) to be "recycled",
| so depressing.
| cocoggu wrote:
| I think there is now a real will from the chinese government to
| limit plastic pollution.
|
| For example, waste sorting started in Shanghai a year ago and
| started in Beijing last June [0].
|
| This is not the usual waste sorting we are experiencing in
| Europe, for example, since you need to decline your identity
| and not make any mistake while sorting or you may get charged.
|
| Probably a bit too invasive (this is China after all) but more
| thorough for what I consider a good cause.
|
| Besides, the first bans on plastic use will take effect on
| January [1]. This is only for small items now, but this is a
| first step, and it also includes production of these items,
| which is especially impressive considering China supremacy on
| the production lines.
|
| [0]
| https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3016801/shan...
|
| [1] https://www.scmp.com/business/china-
| business/article/3101241...
| foofoo55 wrote:
| You mentioned Shanghai and Beijing, but note that sorting
| waste isn't new to the country. I was part of a team that
| installed a single-stream waste sorting system in China in
| 2007, prior to the Olympics. It was a very impressive system
| where all garbage would enter at one end and a large array of
| machines and people would sort the garbage into recyclables,
| compost, and the rest for an incinerator. It used all the
| latest tech, mainly from North America.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I think current garbage sorting is waaay too inefficient,
| and this is fundamentally limits the recyclability rates.
|
| This is especially obvious when you talk about stuff made
| of a lot of different materials.
|
| Picking such things apart for different material streams is
| impossible to scale.
|
| I was thinking, what if governments were mandating
| mandatory chemical tagging of all common materials, so you
| can just shred everything, and then separate materials
| using machines which can distinguish chemical tags.
| lallysingh wrote:
| I think it might be easier to just have machines learn to
| recognize the top 99.9% of all things thrown away and
| leave the rest to a a small group (or landfill).
| londons_explore wrote:
| This seems like the obvious solution. I bet a database of
| 100,000 products would cover the vast majority of all
| waste worldwide. If you can make a machine to sort those
| things into 100,000 (virtual) piles, you can then have a
| specific way to handle each type of thing.
|
| Each manufacturer of those goods can decide how to handle
| their "pile", and if they design for recyclability, it's
| going to be easier and cheaper for them. If they can just
| say "combine our product with these other products made
| from the same material" that'll work out cheapest. If
| their answer is "our product contains a mix of various
| toxic stuff" then they're going to have to pay for some
| specialist to handle it... In every location this 'pile'
| exists in every city...
|
| The only place this system doesn't work is for products
| that change state significantly during consumer use - for
| example a candle gets mostly burnt away, but the
| remaining blobs of wax are probably untracable to the
| original manufacturer.
| dv_dt wrote:
| Do you have any good links to the machinery / tech that
| does that kind of sorting? I've search for it in the past
| and it seems like I was mostly getting hits on European
| manufacturers.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| The systems use lots of clever tricks, like floating
| paper and plastics away from metals with water or jets of
| air, or using eddy currents to push metals out of mixed
| waste. Here's one example:
| https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-07/how-it-
| wor...
| KSteffensen wrote:
| Also:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_waste_import_ban
|
| A not insignificant part of the plastic thrown in rivers in
| South East Asia is consumed in Europe and the USA
| ars wrote:
| > A not insignificant part of the plastic thrown in rivers
| in South East Asia is consumed in Europe and the USA
|
| I've heard this repeated many times, but every time I go
| searching for details I always come back with the same
| results: This is not true.
|
| The garbage in rivers is local.
|
| No one is shipping waste from Europe or USA, but some
| countries do _buy_ recycling. But of course since they paid
| for the recycling, they have no interest in then dumping
| it.
|
| If you have some source showing different I'd be interested
| in seeing it.
| Xylakant wrote:
| Scientists say otherwise:
| https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/environment/plastic-
| for...
| ars wrote:
| If you read the study they don't have great data, so they
| do a lot of estimating. According to the study itself
| it's 1% to 7% of recycling that ends up in the ocean.
|
| Obviously any amount is bad, but this isn't a significant
| source of river plastic.
|
| And to really drive the point home: According to the
| article the plastic ends up in rivers because of _bad
| local trash management_!! (As opposed to deliberate
| dumping.)
|
| So the solution is exactly as others have said: These
| countries need modern municipal trash pickup. The problem
| does not originate in Europe or USA.
|
| BTW: This is a very poor study, for example they use
| numbers for San Fransisco Bay watershed to estimate
| numbers for India.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Recycling, even plastic bans, are not the most direct or
| simple fix. The first and key step is to _stop dumping it in
| the river_. Getting the plastic into landfills is the first
| step. Reduction and recycling are the stretch goals.
| sveme wrote:
| Last year I was swimming in Corsica and every evening when the
| tide rolled in, the plastic rolled in as well. This is an
| island in the mediterranean, so lots of the plastic will
| probably come from first world, European countries, not Asia.
|
| Though I obviously cannot rule out that a lot of the plastic
| actually comes from the Nile.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| This is why feel-good nonsense in 1st world countries like
| plastic bag taxes and banning plastic straws is infuriating.
| arcticfox wrote:
| Is there a source on that actually being nonsense? I
| recognize that it might have a trivial effect overall given
| the global situation, but it still seems like a good step to
| me. I know next to nothing about this though, so I'm
| interested to hear more.
| jacobush wrote:
| I was mildly against it, but now that it's implemented I
| feel a little different about it.
|
| I think the main impact is going to be cultural - people
| are going to start feeling weird about using disposable
| plastic in everything. It's going to nudge everyone just a
| little bit away from plastic.
|
| The kids growing up now, hardly ever seeing a plastic bag,
| will grow up to be designers in the future. Predisposed
| against plastic.
|
| I'm now mildly for banning plastic bags. Where paper is not
| yet optimal, we will eventually iron out the kinks with
| engineering and science.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| You deny the concept of collective impact. One person using a
| plastic straw isn't a big deal. Three hundred million people
| using a few dozen straws per year is additive. Same with all
| disposables.
|
| Furthermore, ocean pollution isn't the only kind. Look at any
| urban creek/bayou bank after a hard rain and look at the
| trash that is washed up in the grass.
|
| The right-wing pejorative is "virtue-signalling" but is that
| always bad? Is it bad to set an example, a cultural marker,
| that we want to encourage re-use and biodegradable materials?
|
| This is not an either-or.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| Throwing someone in a cage for not following your
| admittedly not very effective "cultural marker" is evil. If
| you want to use public shaming to convince restaurants to
| use paper straws, fine, but please leave it at that.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I agree, but I would say the danger is that people will
| feel like they have now done their part - "My straw is
| waxed paper! I'm not destroying the planet!" when in fact
| plenty of other things in their day-to-day lives have a
| much larger impact - insulating your home would do more for
| the world by orders of magnitude (admittedly that doesn't
| keep straws out of sealife, but choose your battles?)
| staplers wrote:
| It might seem ridiculous in the grand scheme but we don't
| live on the grand scale anyway. The first world can sacrifice
| a little bit while demanding change from larger entities.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| So if those countries don't care about their rivers spewing
| plastic into the oceans, could a billionaire simply pay to
| build one of these things and then pay boats to clean up the
| waste it collects?
|
| I wonder what it would cost to just put one of these in
| somewhere and run it. (Including all the bribes/lobbying to
| allow it to be built in the first place)
| hwillis wrote:
| This is ignorant; China has in recent years taken a hard line
| on pollution of various kinds. They already put a moratorium on
| importing foreign trash (which was a huge source of river
| pollution) and are banning single use bags and straws:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51171491
|
| Packaging like plastic bags are by far the biggest source of
| river waste: https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-
| pollution#plastic-waste-b...
|
| China currently produces ~60% of global oceanic plastic waste:
| https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution#share-of-global...
| azinman2 wrote:
| So if China currently produces a majority of oceanic plastic
| waste, how hard a line could it be?
| jbay808 wrote:
| "if I'm hitting the accelerator hard, how could it be that
| I'm not currently moving fast?"
|
| I guess we'll see when they adopt these bubble barriers, or
| something similar.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| "I've been holding the accelerator down hard for multiple
| minutes, why am I not moving fast?"
|
| They didn't start just a month or two ago. I share the
| skepticism of it being a "hard line".
| lozenge wrote:
| Installing a bubble barrier could be a lot easier than solving
| plastic pollution all the way along the river in a country with
| endemic corruption.
| rasz wrote:
| Case in point, India:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeDY3I841q0
| itronitron wrote:
| What's nice about this solution is that it's not trying to
| change people's behaviors. Instead, by angling (no pun
| intended) the bubble barrier across the current the rivers and
| canals can be used to sort the plastics into recycling bins.
| apacheCamel wrote:
| >First of all, one common statistic is that 90% of trash in the
| ocean that comes from people dumping it (in rivers) comes from
| just 10 rivers, all in China/Asia.
|
| >So while still very clever, I sadly don't think this could
| ever make a difference.
|
| I get what you mean by this, but why can't these solutions be
| used in places that _are_ willing to make a difference?
| Anywhere this is deployed is making a difference locally. In
| the grand scheme of the world, yes we do need some big
| solutions to get some places up to speed but if a bubble wall
| cleans up some of the 10% other plastic in the water, then I am
| all for it. We can 't keep our heads in the sand over the 90%,
| but we need to be happy about the small victories we can get.
|
| I remember hearing about the machine that picks up trash in
| Baltimore at the Inner Harbor. It would take the current and
| push the trash into the machines conveyor belt. It was probably
| pick up a percent of a percent of the total world trash, but it
| made the harbor area much cleaner.
| gruez wrote:
| >I get what you mean by this, but why can't these solutions
| be used in places that are willing to make a difference?
|
| Our efforts (and resources) might be better allocated in an
| area that has a bigger impact. This is basically the idea
| behind cap and trade. Why spend $10 to pick up 1 ton of
| plastic waste in the first world (made up numbers), when you
| can spend $10 to pick up 5 tons of plastic waste in asia? A
| more concrete example would be the water conservation
| measures in calfiornia a few years ago. The vast majority of
| the water usage is by agriculture, but residents were asked
| to engage in water saving practices (not watering laws, short
| showers, opt-in water at restaurants) at great inconvenience
| to them, even though any savings would be a drop in the
| bucket overall.
| apacheCamel wrote:
| I see what you mean, but at the same point, the $10 to pick
| up 5 tons of plastic in Asia doesn't seem to be happening
| for whatever reason. My reasoning is that $10 to pick up 1
| ton of plastic is still a good option since the $10 to pick
| up 5 tons is not a guarantee.
| [deleted]
| rdiddly wrote:
| I wouldn't call that cynical, just a recognition that the
| "missing ingredients" in any plan usually turn out to be
| leadership, courage, compassion etc., not technology.
| hammock wrote:
| >90% of trash in the ocean that comes from people dumping it
| (in rivers) comes from just 10 rivers, all in China/Asia
|
| So you're saying with bubble barriers in just 10 places (as
| opposed to all around the world), we can clean up 90% of ocean
| trash from dumping? That's amazing. A lot easier than trying to
| get China et al. to implement more "actual municipal trash
| pickup and urban trashcans etc." The first world could
| crowdfund the barriers. I'll help.
| twic wrote:
| The point is that those 10 places don't even need bubble
| barriers, they just need normal first-world refuse handling.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| But the other point is that it's way easier to build 10
| barriers than convince thousands (millions?) of people to
| change their habits. Especially in the short term.
| chrischen wrote:
| Isn't our first world refuse handling to send it to the
| second world?
| ars wrote:
| No, it is not. Why do so many people believe this?
|
| I've seen it repeated over and over as if it were true,
| but it's not.
| tremon wrote:
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/burning-
| truth-...
|
| > reporters come here thinking this is the destination
| for old laptops exported from the United States [..] But
| this isn't the destination at all. The computer shops
| are.
|
| > According to the United Nations Environment Programme,
| 85 percent of the e-waste dumped in Ghana and other parts
| of West Africa is produced in Ghana and West Africa
|
| I think "produced" is a massive misnomer here. For as far
| as I know, there are no high-tech electronics factories
| in Africa. What the 85% figure refers to, I guess, is the
| part of the waste that was part of the local economy
| before ending up at the dump. But from the first quote,
| that still means the site is filled with discarded items
| from the US and Europe, just not directly.
| ars wrote:
| So .... discarded items from the US and Europe are given
| new life and reused in Ghana? And this is bad somehow?
|
| Isn't reuse the ideal situation?
|
| Not to mention e-waste vs plastic trash are rather
| different topics.
|
| I repeat what I said: First world countries do not deal
| with trash by sending it to second world countries,
| despite being oft repeated, this is not actually true.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| If there was a way to setup a nonprofit actually competent
| enough to carry this out, and maintain it, and fend off any
| local politicking that is bound to happen then this might be
| the fastest solution. Of course the difficulty is getting
| enough buy in from the countries with those rivers since
| using force is probably not possible.
| crazygringo wrote:
| For all the reasons you've stated, that's why it's simply
| not going to happen.
|
| Can you think of _any_ major environmental project funded
| by foreigners that just goes in and successfully helps out?
|
| They don't work because they're seen as an affront to the
| nation's autonomy. It's not seen as help. It's seen as
| invasion.
|
| I'm not even joking: in Brazil most of the population
| believes that any effort by US private citizens/charities
| to purchase land in the Amazon to protect it is just a
| front to make a future US military invasion of the Amazon
| easier. It's ludicrous to Americans, but it's just "common
| sense" to Brazilians.
| Aunche wrote:
| If the rivers get sufficiently clogged up with trash, the
| bubble barriers aren't going to do anything. The pressure
| from the river on a lot of garbage will easily overcome the
| bubbles. Eventually, somebody is going to need to incinerate
| the trash or move it to a landfill.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Are you thinking that the bubble barrier is just meant to
| push the trash to the side, and that's it? Clearly, they
| are trying to push it to one location for easier
| collection. Try being a little more open to ideas, and a
| little more thought about next steps.
| Aunche wrote:
| It's much easier to collect trash in dump sites in flood-
| prone areas for example than from a river. Concentrated
| trash in a smaller body of water won't be much easier to
| collect than the status quo given how much concentrated
| trash there already major Asian rivers, especially when
| you consider how much maintenance a great bubble barrier
| would require.
|
| We don't need new solutions. Developed countries have
| already solved the problem of river trash with waste
| management, but since it's not glamorous enough, people
| only fund these well meaning flashy projects that could
| create more environmental harm than they prevent.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| I don't follow. Because China don't even implement a
| countrywide logistics-heavy service branch, they won't bother
| with a cheaper, localized solution?
| quirkot wrote:
| This is the opposite of a localized solution. It attempts to
| do waste collection at an aggregated point. Where does all
| the waste go that _doesn 't_ end up in river with managed
| waste collection, is the issue
| crazygringo wrote:
| The countrywide logistics-heavy solution provides actual
| benefits to residents with cleaner cities and rivers.
|
| The catch-it-at-the-mouth-of-the-river one doesn't. It would
| still be expensive, but benefit only the ocean, not
| residents.
|
| So sadly, yes -- I can't imagine why they'd bother.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| The Chinese do eat seafood. They don't sacrifice growth for
| the environment, but passing up something relatively simple
| (and extremely clever) like this?
|
| I can't think of why they wouldn't try it.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > First of all, one common statistic is that 90% of trash in
| the ocean that comes from people dumping it (in rivers) comes
| from just 10 rivers, all in China/Asia.
|
| > but that's not where the problem is.
|
| Maybe we should stop using them as our factories for 80% of the
| gadgets, tech, clothes, &c. we consume.
| bobloblaw45 wrote:
| It gives me a strong "solar freaking roadway" vibe. I feel like
| there has to be some details missing that makes a huge
| difference.
| Hitton wrote:
| The ten rivers dumping 90% of plastic are in Asia and Africa.
| But Chinese trash is indeed big factor in more than half of the
| rivers.
| kijin wrote:
| Another big problem is that rivers in the developing world
| aren't particularly well controlled.
|
| Just this summer, a massive flood in the Yangtze basin
| displaced over 60 million people and inundated a number of
| large cities. The flood carries anything that will float
| downstream, and eventually dumps them in the ocean. As it
| happens, plastics tend to float pretty well.
|
| So even if the Chinese government declared that they will
| shoot anyone who throws trash in the rivers effective
| immediately, the rivers themselves come into people's homes,
| snatch plastics, and carry them into the ocean every year.
| jtxx wrote:
| this rhyme is going to be stuck in my head for a while
| scott31 wrote:
| Off topic, why is bubble sort called bubble sort? Is it because
| bubbles are slow?
| ORioN63 wrote:
| Without looking further, I would say it's because elements
| bubble up as they're sorted.
|
| Edit: Wikipedia [1] seems to agree: The
| algorithm, which is a comparison sort, is named for the way
| smaller or larger elements "bubble" to the top of the list.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_sort
| zingplex wrote:
| Because smaller or larger items bubble up to the top of the
| list. If you watch a visualization you'll see what I mean.
| jorge-d wrote:
| I think the best solution to avoid plastic pollution is to tax it
| heavily where it does not make sense, whether it's single use or
| not.
|
| Also I believe a nice solution to plastic recycling would be for
| legislators to implement a standardisation of all the bottles /
| food packaging / etc. so that they all use the exact same type of
| plastic.
|
| Then once we stop dropping tons or plastic on our ocean and
| polluting our soils with it, we might end up with a quite-clean
| environment in the next 50-70y (and pray that there are no long
| term effects on plastic contamination).
|
| But in the end, the best solution to plastic is definitely to
| stop using it.
| tjansen wrote:
| I think this may be a good solution for those countries where
| trash more or less accidentally ends up in rivers. But what
| percentage of trash ends up accidentally in the sea, and how much
| trash is intentionally dumped because it's cheaper or easier? I
| would assume that's far less than the 8 billion kilos per year
| quoted on the page.
| erwinkle wrote:
| This technology is already implemented and being used in harbors
| (I've seen it in Florida) to keep the seaweed OUT of the marina.
| It was very impressive how well it worked
| wazoox wrote:
| How does it compare or complement the "river cleaner" from the
| Ocean Cleanup?
| taf2 wrote:
| Would love to see this in action in the chesapeake bay on the
| east coast.
| jackinloadup wrote:
| Interesting, this claims that fish and other wildlife can pass
| through but they don't seem to explain how it's different from
| bubble barriers used to deter fish from passing into underwater
| construction zones related to drilling or pile driving [1].
|
| [1] https://www.newnybridge.com/protecting-underwater-
| wildlife-b...
| kungtotte wrote:
| In that article the primary purpose seems to be to reduce
| soundwaves rather than preventing fish from passing through, so
| both sources are in agreement there that it lessens soundwaves.
|
| Also the pressures could be different. It's not hard to imagine
| that higher pressure would act as a bigger deterrent to passing
| through, so maybe that's what they're using at the construction
| site?
|
| Both the bubble barrier page and the article you linked are
| fairly short on specifics though, which is a shame. It wouldn't
| be that hard to write out some pressures...
| jackinloadup wrote:
| Agree, I hope it's a possible solution. Just thought it was
| interesting after hearing about the technology a few days ago
| in relation to sound suppression and rocket launches.
| witherk wrote:
| Interesting Idea! This seems like an elegant but somewhat
| expensive solution. Does the power consumed by pumping tons of
| air 24/7 offset the ecological gains by the system? If this can
| stop microscopic plastic than it would probably also stop
| microscopic creatures. Are there shore based ecosystems that rely
| on those creatures coming to shore, or vice versa?
|
| Anyways still seems worth trying.
| jiofih wrote:
| If it's wind / solar, absolutely. A compressor for that canal
| run is probably using 1-2KW/h, comparable to a small shop. If
| the compressor itself is cooled by the water you're even
| putting back some of the sun or wind energy that would have
| gone into it :)
| TheGallopedHigh wrote:
| Could even use tidal as it lies in a river
| MereInterest wrote:
| Your units are wonky. I'll assume you mean 1-2 kW, a unit of
| power output. kW/h would be a rate of increase of power (e.g.
| "The generator is producing 500 kW now, and can safely ramp
| up at a rate of 100 kW/h.")
| badwolf wrote:
| in the US Kilowatt-hour is commonly used like that, and not
| as a rate of change -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-hour
| smolder wrote:
| It would be a kilowatt-hours per hour in this case, also
| known as kilowatts.
| toast0 wrote:
| A kWh is not a kW/h. Also, a device used continuously
| would use a number of kWh over a time period... So kWh/h
| or kW. If you were discussing a process, you might say it
| takes so many kWh per cycle, like charging a battery or
| producing an item, etc.
| MereInterest wrote:
| The kW*h doesn't make sense in this context, either. It
| is a unit of energy, and would imply a one-time cost to
| have bubbles made from then on.
| solstice wrote:
| From the FAQ[1]:
|
| > Is it possible to remove microplastics from water by using a
| Bubble Barrier? During the Berlin Bubble Barrier Pilot, the
| Bubble Barrier was able to catch plastic as small as 1
| millimetre. It depends on the catchment system whether the
| microplastics are able to be brought ashore. In the pilot at
| Wervershoof, we are investigating whether we can catch
| microplastics measuring 20 micrometers up to 500 micrometers
| (0,5 millimeters).
|
| Only stopping larger plastic could be enough of a win, I think,
| as this would prevent it from being broken down into
| microplastic...
|
| [^1]: https://thegreatbubblebarrier.com/en/faq-en/
| dmux wrote:
| >Does the power consumed by pumping tons of air 24/7 offset the
| ecological gains by the system?
|
| I was thinking along the same lines. I'm guessing it would be
| cheaper to concentrate all the plastic close to the source so
| it can be easily collected. Compared to sending N boats out to
| M garbage patches that exist, I'm thinking this will be more
| efficient.
| balthasar wrote:
| Inspired by a Sonic the Hedgehog level.
| WhompingWindows wrote:
| There's already an existing solution for this purpose:
| https://www.mrtrashwheel.com/
| drfrank wrote:
| That handles plastic that's already floating, whereas this
| claims to bring plastic to the surface.
|
| The two solutions seem complementary.
| spodek wrote:
| Future generations will look at our wanton use of single-use
| plastic like we look at leaded gasoline or cigarettes and wonder
| what took us so long to legislate banning poisoning our
| environment. A bubble barrier moves the plastic around, it
| doesn't decrease its production.
|
| If it helps in some small way relative to decreasing plastic
| production, great -- no need to let the perfect be the enemy of
| the good -- but let's keep it in context of decreasing
| production.
|
| Also, technical solutions to social and behavioral problems tend
| to create unintended side-effect. Have we considered them?
| crazynick4 wrote:
| If it blocks plastic, what else might it block?
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| Solidly into "why didn't I think of that" territory.
|
| Who's got other examples? I'll go first:
|
| In my kitchen, I have a coffee can full of ordinary plastic
| clothespegs/pins that I use to clip bags shut. They work so much
| better than occlupanids or even purpose-made bag clips, whether
| you fold or spin the bag.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I use metal binder clips for holding bags shut. Maybe they'll
| break eventually but I've been using the same ones for years
| and haven't had one break yet.
| jiofih wrote:
| Why not go the extra mile and use wooden pegs. Less plastic!
| atoav wrote:
| I am ging to be that guy now: he already _has_ those plastic
| pegs. Throwing them away and getting wooden ones may _look_
| more environmentally friendly, but it isn 't.
|
| Avoiding to buy plastic in the future is a good idea. But
| throwing away perfectly fine plastic stuff you have to
| replace it with wood stuff isn't.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's the case in my home. We have some supply of plastic
| clothespins bought years ago, and some of them just slowly
| migrated to the kitchen. We aren't planning to buy any kind
| of new ones any time soon.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I could see this working in a shallow stream meandering through
| the countryside. I don't see this being effective in a deep/fast
| river. What do those bubble nets look like in a river 50+ feet
| deep and moving a several mph? Remember that the bubbles get
| bigger as they rise. I don't think many fish will be happy to
| swim through a maelstrom of compressed air rushing from giant
| pipes on the bottom.
| giarc wrote:
| You could create steps so to speak. So across the river there
| would be bubble lines that are only 20% or so of the span. Then
| the plastic would step down until it reaches the other side and
| fish could swim around the bubble lines.
|
| I realized I probably didn't describe it well... he's a drawing
| of what I mean https://imgur.com/a/n9PdT0L
| eloff wrote:
| How does this let fish past? Dolphins and whales use bubble
| corrals as a fishing technique specifically because fish don't
| like crossing it. I believe it's also being tested as an
| alternative to shark nets. Presumably this would be a more
| intense bubble wall, which I would expect to seriously impede the
| free movement of marine species.
|
| Maybe if it were suspended near the surface of the river so fish
| could swim under it. That probably wouldn't let much plastic
| through, as this would only really be effective on floating
| plastics anyway.
| drran wrote:
| See it: >| | >| | | > |
| >| | | >| |
| robocat wrote:
| Although in the video they don't have breaks and they have it
| angled to steer the rubbish towards a trap:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_KwF-gf0S0
|
| But they could add breaks: > \ > \
| > \ \ > \ > \ >
| [rubbishtrap]
|
| The biggest problem I could see is that it also traps leaves
| etc which you would ideally let past as they surely are
| needed for the river mouth ecosystem?
| eloff wrote:
| Yeah, that's clever, it might work.
| SeanFerree wrote:
| I think this is a great solution! We still have to wonder why so
| much plastic is dumped into the oceans. We have to find a
| biodegradable alternative to plastics. Otherwise, we are just
| masking the problem
| kuu wrote:
| I wonder how this affects other stuff such as plankton or other
| kind of nutrients...
| GordonS wrote:
| Interesting! I spent some time recently looking into technical
| solutions for marine aquaculture industry problems, and I saw the
| same concept proposed as a preventative measure for salmon farms,
| to reduce sea lice infestation. It was referred to as a "bubble
| curtain", or something like that. IIRC, I may have also seen it
| proposed as a measure against harmful algae blooms (HABs).
| luckylion wrote:
| > How much energy does a Bubble Barrier use?
|
| > The Bubble Barrier uses compressed air to create the bubble
| curtain. Depending on the scale and length of the Bubble Barrier,
| this is done by means of a compressor. The length of the Bubble
| Barrier has a significant influence on the necessary energy
| usage. Our Bubble Barrier uses much less energy than bubble
| curtains that are used to separate fresh from salt water or to
| prevent oil spills.
|
| Based on them explicitly not wanting to give any numbers and
| comparing it to much larger and more difficult operations, I'm
| guessing this is the main issue. It may well work, but costs a
| lot of energy. Doing that in NW Europe feels like spending a lot
| to achieve a little, because plastic going into the ocean is a)
| not primarily from rivers and b) among that which is delivered
| via rivers, it's not primarily from rivers in Europe.
| giarc wrote:
| There are a lot of companies developing river turbines that
| possible could complement this well. I have no idea if they
| produce the right amount of power though.
| luckylion wrote:
| Good point, though you probably need a strong flow for
| turbines, which will be an issue for the bubble barrier. And
| for large rivers that are also deep (i.e. any river that is
| used for larger scale shipping), the infrastructure seems
| extreme.
|
| It's one thing to handle a 10m wide canal that's 2m deep,
| it's quite another to install that system on a river that's
| 800m across and 10m deep. I believe we'll quickly reach a
| level where it's not economical to do put a lot of energy
| into it to catch what little waste there is. On the other
| hand, maybe there are positive side effects, more oxygen in
| the water?
| dpix wrote:
| Doesn't this just encourage more plastic dumping into waterways?
| Now you can write it off because "it wont harm fish anymore"
|
| Lets create systems where we don't need to dump plastic in
| waterways at all.
| csours wrote:
| "Let's create systems where we don't need to use
| firewalls/authentication/application patches/defensive
| programming"
|
| The perfect is the enemy of the good. Defense in depth is a
| winning strategy.
|
| To be clear: we should also not be polluting/littering/etc.
| That's part of defense in depth.
| latchkey wrote:
| Related: https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2020/09/selfish-pochien-
| chen/
| nabla9 wrote:
| It would be better to have some kind of deposit system.
|
| Any plastic or plastic product importer must pay deposit per
| weigh of plastic. When used plastic is returned for
| recycling/burning etc. that deposit is paid to whoever returns
| it. This way waste plastic would have a price that would make it
| worth not to throw it away.
| cagenut wrote:
| This is interesting. There's a related "startup" tackling the
| problem from a different angle: https://theoceancleanup.com/
|
| They did some research and found that something like the top 5 or
| top 10 rivers in the world are the source of 80+% of the plastic
| in the ocean. So they came up with this plastic-filtering-barge
| design with hopes of placing them at key points in all the major
| rivers. So far four are built and in operation. Absolutely not a
| solution but a ton of harm reduction.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/user/TheOceanCleanup/videos
| jiofih wrote:
| Both of them hail from Amsterdam! I imagine the bubble idea
| might have come out of seeing the ocean cleanup barges in
| operation - they have the problem of interfering with boat
| traffic where deployed.
| drxzcl wrote:
| Ocean Cleanup is originally a Delft company that moved to
| Rotterdam.
|
| They are not "from Amsterdam".
| rzwitserloot wrote:
| The Ocean Cleanup hails from Delft. It was founded there, and
| the concept was 'invented' whilst the inventors were busy
| with an Aerospace Engineering course at the Delft University.
|
| Different province and about an hour's travel south from
| Amsterdam
|
| I guess the frisian province is 'Amsterdam Lake District',
| rotterdam is 'Amsterdam Harbour', The Hague is 'Amsterdam
| Government Plaza', and Delft is just 'Amsterdam - Burials of
| Royals + that place with the solar boats and cars and the
| plastic barges dept' :P
|
| NB: I think that "Amsterdam Lake District" thing really is
| how its marketed from time to time to attempt to distribute
| tourism more throughout the country. The rest a bit more
| tongue in cheek.
| aaron695 wrote:
| What's the children's book, by a classic SciFi artist in the
| 70s-ish with well done living in the future illustrations.
|
| One was an underwater habitat and all the fish were kept in
| vertical cages made of bubbles?
|
| It makes me laugh my childhood wonder turns out to be real,
| except it's for rubbish.
|
| [edit] The Usborne Book of the Future (1979) had it, but I'm sure
| it's not the only one - P16 P17 -
| http://calameo.download/00081642432fc0bfded26 All new ideas are
| old.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-15 23:00 UTC)